Burress could testify before grand jury on Wednesday

Lawyer Benjamin Brafman recently suggested that receiver Plaxico Burress could testify before the grand jury that is considering whether to indict him on felony gun charges.

According to ESPN’s Sal Paolantonio, Burress would testify before the grand jury on Wednesday, July 29.

Brafman and Burress reportedly are discussing the possibility, and a decision as to whether he’ll testify will come on Tuesday.

The fact that Brafman is even considering the move demonstrates how clear the facts of the case are. Unless Burress plans to claim that he was shot by a gun that was in someone else’s possession, he’ll tell the grand jury why he was carrying a gun, that he had a license to carry it in Florida, that he had no idea the license didn’t apply to New York, and that the only reason anyone knew he had the gun is because he blew two holes through his leg.

But if the grand jury takes seriously its obligation to uphold the law, none of this will matter.

14 Responses to “Burress could testify before grand jury on Wednesday”

Bob S. says:Jul 27, 2009 9:18 PM

Wasn’t OJ not guilty after a vote?

blackglass says:Jul 27, 2009 9:20 PM

Stupid, yes. Lucky he didn’t hurt anyone else, yes. Deserving of anything past community service and a 4 game NFL suspension (at most); Good God No. And this is coming from someone who can’t stand him.

houskat says:Jul 27, 2009 9:22 PM

Money talks and bullshit walks….

empty13 says:Jul 27, 2009 9:45 PM

glass i would say 4 games for the hole in the leg and 4 more for just being a dick.
if yer a member of a team or a club or whatever, ya just cant keep doing all the dumb shit he did. and remain a member.

RexRyan'sStressedLapband says:Jul 27, 2009 10:04 PM

This is what I love about this ass backwards country. Here is a man who is in CLEAR violation of the law, remember it is pretty black and white, and the fact that there is even a CHANCE that he goes through no legal process past this is ridiculous. If it were anyone else, and the beautiful part is that since he’s been cut, he IS kind of someone else, then they would indict him and have him in prison by Labor Day. We’ll see…

Shackman v2.0 says:Jul 27, 2009 11:31 PM

Once those jurors get a look at that hang dog stupid mug of Buress’, they’ll fail to indict out of pity.

east96st says:Jul 28, 2009 12:11 AM

“he’ll tell the grand jury why he was carrying a gun, that he had a license to carry it in Florida, that he had no idea the license didn’t apply to New York”
If he had no idea, then why did he give Antonio Pierce the gun to hide back in NJ and why did he arrange to be seen only by a doctor that would not report the gun wound to police? Case closed. Should have taken the plea.

ham1 says:Jul 28, 2009 6:01 AM

I dont think he gets off. I think they are gonna stick it to him.
For the life of me to allow that idiot to open his mouth, as his best defense, looks like a disaster.
Only in America

Bob Nelson says:Jul 28, 2009 8:57 AM

No law by government can take away you inalienable right to possess a firearm.
The man has suffered enough by being shot and missing games. In fact he is scared for life.
Why prosecute someone when he harmed no other citizen?
No harm, no foul.

Bob Nelson says:Jul 28, 2009 9:19 AM

No law by government can take away you inalienable right to possess a firearm.
The man has suffered enough by being shot and missing games. In fact he is scared for life.
Why prosecute someone when he harmed no other citizen?
No harm, no foul.

texasPHINSfan says:Jul 28, 2009 11:38 AM

i hope he goes to jail for 3.5 years.
the law was clear, and people that don’t have millions to hire Brafman that committed the same offense had to do the time. Why does Plaxico, a repeat-dirtbag, better than everyone else who committed the same crime?
no more favors for athletes. the same laws that apply to me should apply to them.

Sinjin says:Jul 28, 2009 3:45 PM

I believe the statute in question is a strict liability statute meaning that the only relevant question is whether the act in question (i.e. carrying a handgun w/o a license) was done. No state of mind (mens rea) such as knowledge or recklessness is even required to be proven by the prosecutor. Therefore these potential defenses which go to the state of mind are not viable.
If I were the prosecutor at trial
I would make motions in limine precluding Burress’s defense team from even bringing these excuses up.

Nevisyakker says:Jul 28, 2009 3:52 PM

To Nelson…”No harm, no foul.”
I guess that would be the same as not giving a DUI to a drunk driver unless he actually ran someone over. No, I’m not taking a shot at Stallworth. The laws are enforced to protect us all and to discourage idiots from from doing idiotic things like carrying an illegal firearm into a public place and having it accidentally discharge.
As far as I can tell, the guidelines are 3.5 years. He rejected a plea, so he takes his chance with a jury of his peers. Hopefully that doesn’t mean they have to scrounge through every rat hole to find twelve people as dumb as he is.

jwitz714 says:Jul 29, 2009 6:32 AM

I’m not familiar with the laws but it seems as though maybe 6 – 9 months would be a fair sentence for illegally carrying a concealed weapon. Oh I forgot he shot someone!!! Maybe 2-3 years. Oh but it was himself does being stupid make a difference?